Tamron 24-70 VR Price $1300

Not sure if this has been posted but Adorama has this lens for pre-order (at least for Nikon mount) $1300

http://www.adorama.com …er&utm_source=r​flaid63773

yummy.

I guess lots of people will be springing for this instead of the Mark 2.

Odd to see a pre-order without any reviews whatsoever. I haven't even seen any info on pre-production samples... did I miss anything? It seems rather risky to gamble 1300 on a lens that might be epic fail - although I don't expect it will...

Tamron has been kind of hit and miss. The 17-50 2.8 was great. Their VC version not to much. The 70-300 was ok, but nothing special. The 10-24 was not good at all in it's class, and the 60mm macro didn't offer anything above the canon 60mm since it's only f/2 near infinity, which makes having f/2 rather pointless.

TweakMDS wrote in post #14215615
Odd to see a pre-order without any reviews whatsoever. I haven't even seen any info on pre-production samples... did I miss anything? It seems rather risky to gamble 1300 on a lens that might be epic fail - although I don't expect it will...

Tamron has been kind of hit and miss. The 17-50 2.8 was great. Their VC version not to much. The 70-300 was ok, but nothing special. The 10-24 was not good at all in it's class, and the 60mm macro didn't offer anything above the canon 60mm since it's only f/2 near infinity, which makes having f/2 rather pointless.

Hmmm disagree...look at it this way:

The 17-50mm VC evidently had a couple problems at first but newer reports are much better...agree though that it's not a huge hit.

The 10-24 is not optically great, BUT it is also incredibly cheap and offers a versatile range, and gets pretty darn good stopped down.

The 60mm is super sharp. I agree it's not appealing compared to the Canon 60mm f2.8 USM though. The reason not being the optics, but being the focus on the tamron seems just terribad. If that thing had USD and/or a limiter it'd be a totally different story.

The 70-300 is friggin great, whatchoo talkin' bout! Beats the 70-300 canon non-L that's for sure. Not to mention the build roflstomps the Canon 70-300 non-L and 55-250 so bad it's not funny. =p And the VC is great. Plus real ring motor af. The only real downside is the hood, when reversed, blocks ring. IQ wise it's in between the 70-300mm original and the 70-300mm L, imho.

If this new Tamron is in between the v1 and v2 24-70L, has Tamron's proven great VC, and is the price of the v1 L, it's a home run~

Wow, great price, compared to canon 24-70 insanity

A bargin, if that suits your needs

Too Much for a Tammy

$950-975.00,,,,,,,,,,,, maybe

Canon 24-70 Version I is an excellent lens

Optically and performance wise, the Tammy would have to be as good as the 24-70 Version I for me to even consider. Will wait and see the reviews and for the price to come down. I would figure that if its close in performance, for 1K, I might consider.

umphotography wrote in post #14216385
Too Much for a Tammy

$950-975.00,,,,,,,,,,,, maybe

Canon 24-70 Version I is an excellent lens

Optically and performance wise, the Tammy would have to be as good as the 24-70 Version I for me to even consider. Will wait and see the reviews and for the price to come down. I would figure that if its close in performance, for 1K, I might consider.

+1! Wait and see for me. But the lens is intriguing ...

i've found you usually get what you pay for.

woos wrote in post #14215835
Hmmm disagree...look at it this way:

The 17-50mm VC evidently had a couple problems at first but newer reports are much better...agree though that it's not a huge hit.

The 10-24 is not optically great, BUT it is also incredibly cheap and offers a versatile range, and gets pretty darn good stopped down.

The 60mm is super sharp. I agree it's not appealing compared to the Canon 60mm f2.8 USM though. The reason not being the optics, but being the focus on the tamron seems just terribad. If that thing had USD and/or a limiter it'd be a totally different story.

The 70-300 is friggin great, whatchoo talkin' bout! Beats the 70-300 canon non-L that's for sure. Not to mention the build roflstomps the Canon 70-300 non-L and 55-250 so bad it's not funny. =p And the VC is great. Plus real ring motor af. The only real downside is the hood, when reversed, blocks ring. IQ wise it's in between the 70-300mm original and the 70-300mm L, imho.

If this new Tamron is in between the v1 and v2 24-70L, has Tamron's proven great VC, and is the price of the v1 L, it's a home run~

Perhaps you're better informed in regards to these specific lenses, but from what I've read and seen here; the 17-50 VC is much, much worse than the 17-50 - which also had some occasional AF problems (but was alround very nice). AFAIK, it didn't have problems, it just wasn't sharp at all... I'm not aware of any new versions being better either.

The 10-24 is slightly cheaper than it's competitors, but certainly not by enough to make it worth picking that over the Sigma 10-20 or one of the Tokina models.
I really wasn't impressed by the 70-300. It was better than I expected, but I honestly can't say it was better than the Canon 70-300, apart from the VC being an improvement and the build being slightly better. The 55-250 is no comparison in my opinion, because it's a crop lens.

My point was, the 24-70 might be good, possibly even great, and for 1300 it better be at least good... Still, it might also be similar to the 17-50 VC, which is why I find it odd that it's even available for pre order without ANY pre production reviews / samples.

Simply having image stabilization doesn't totally cut it. Can't wait to to see a proper IQ comparison with the first generation Canon model. The price is right if it beats the old model Canon 24-70.

umphotography wrote in post #14216385
Too Much for a Tammy

$950-975.00,,,,,,,,,,,, maybe

Canon 24-70 Version I is an excellent lens

Optically and performance wise, the Tammy would have to be as good as the 24-70 Version I for me to even consider. Will wait and see the reviews and for the price to come down. I would figure that if its close in performance, for 1K, I might consider.

Isn't the tamron 28-75 already in this category? The only thing one can hold against it (the 28-75) is its focusing speed and build quality. I would be surprised if the new 24-70 wont be better than the canon v1 with the addition of vc. Cant wait to actually see what it actually brings to the table.

The 28-75mm are known to vary heavily from copy to copy. I've owned 3 of them and none of them have been perfect. ALL of them have been unusably soft wide open @ f2.8-4 @ 75mm. Let's hope this beast is in a different league!

TweakMDS wrote in post #14215615
and the 60mm macro didn't offer anything above the canon 60mm since it's only f/2 near infinity, which makes having f/2 rather pointless.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic, but that's not a fair comparison. The Canon 60mm also gets darker as you focus nearer to 1:1, so it is always about a stop slower. It is f4.5 by the time you get to 1:1.